Briefing from the Community Relations Council to the Panel of Parties established under the strategy

Together: Building a United Community

September 2013

2  

 

Contents

1. Introduction

2. Role of the Community Relations Council

3. Policy Background

4. Conclusion

5. Summary of CRC papers on flags, parades and dealing with the past

Annexes

Annex 1 Flags and related matters

Annex 2 Parades and protests

Annex 3 Dealing with the past

Annex 4 Examples of CRC’s work and achievements over recent years

3  

 

1. Introduction

The Community Relations Council (CRC) wishes the Panel of Parties, under the

Chairmanship of Dr. Richard Haass, every success in its endeavours to constructively

resolve the outstanding contested issues which still pervade our society. CRC offers its full

support based on three decades experience of addressing community relations issues.

CRC believes that it is essential to view the immediate issues around flags, parades and

dealing with the past in the overall context of the deep, complex and multi layered divisions

in this community. Hopefully your work can help us to handle the flags issue better, manage

the parades and protests problems more effectively, and move us towards a widely

acceptable approach to dealing with past events.

CRC has outlined its many years of work within its submission (annex 4) and also wishes to

acknowledge that throughout the years of violence, some of the most important community

relations work was, and continues to be, kept alive through the work of the voluntary and

community sector. Academics, funding bodies, Trade Unions, Churches and others have

also played an important policy, research and support role contributing to a regional

approach to peace building.

However, progress in these areas, very welcome though it would be, will not in itself remove

the deep underlying divisions. All our experience suggests that fresh divisive issues will

emerge or old ones will resurface. We believe passionately that a very strong focus must be

maintained on all aspects of the long term process of healing community divisions, tackling

inequalities, addressing honestly the issues that continue to divide us and building on those

areas that can unite a divided society.

The reduction in violence and especially the creation of devolved institutions are very

significant advances. But it has to be recognised more frankly that the political structures

tend to reinforce division by obliging the political parties to maintain and defend their position

within their part of the community, rather than seek support from other parts of the

community. The low voting turnout and opinion poll evidence about public attitudes to the

Assembly are alarming trends.

2. Role of the Community Relations Council

CRC was formed in January 1990 with the purpose of supporting and promoting community

relations work at all levels within the community, a role which it continues to carry out. It

4  

 

originated from a proposal of a research report commissioned by the NI Standing Advisory

Committee on Human Rights titled ‘Improving Community Relations’ (Frazer & McDuff,

1986). CRC is the regional body for community relations in Northern Ireland, established as

an independent charity and acting as an arm’s length body through sponsorship by the

Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister (OFMDFM). The board is appointed

through a supervised public appointments process and the Memorandum and Articles

provides for up to one third of the Board to be appointed by the Government.

Since its establishment in 1990 CRC has supported practical initiatives underpinning

progress towards a society whose principles are fairness and justice, the peaceful

celebration of variety and difference, and the importance of sharing, trust and inclusion. By

supporting partnerships, co-operation, dialogue, meeting and friendship, and by promoting

better practice and policy, CRC is the leading independent voice championing change to

achieve and maintain a shared and open society based on fairness, the celebration of

diversity and variety, and genuine reconciliation and interdependence.

As the regional body for community relations CRC has an obligation to challenge across the

system to promote a shared and better future throughout government and society. The

consultation responses to A Shared Future clearly indicated that there was widespread

support for such a regional body, independent of government and capable of commanding

support to promote good relations throughout government and society, support

organisations through funding, training and development of good practice and to provide a

challenge function across the public sector and wider civic society through research, best

practice and policy development.

Since its inception CRC has developed significantly in its approach to this work, and in it

support and implementation of actions and programmes that seek to proactively

acknowledge and deal with the legacy of our conflict and the continued impacts of division

so as to ensure a better quality of life for all in our society.

CRC’s vision is of a peaceful, inclusive, prosperous, stable and fair society founded on the

achievement of reconciliation, equality, co-operation, respect, mutual trust and good

relations, of an open society free from intimidation and threat, where peace and tolerance

are considered normal.

To support the securing and attainment of this vision CRC’s responsibilities as a regional

body are

5  

 

• Advocating and challenging progress towards a better, shared and prosperous inter-

community partnership and inter-cultural co-operation

• Increasing awareness of community relations work and encouraging the flow of ideas

and practice on North-South, East-West, European and international levels through

commissioning and undertaking research

• Developing, supporting and disseminating best practice examples of peace-building

and facilitating constructive debate on difficult, sensitive and controversial topics,

whilst acknowledging and promoting good relations actions

• Providing support for local groups and organisations (finance, training, advice and

information) to develop opportunities for cross-community understanding

• Providing practical opportunities for inter-community and inter-cultural partnership

understanding and interventions

• Assisting central and local Government in the development, implementation, and

delivery of policies, programmes and actions by connecting community relations

issues through learning from research and programmes at regional, sub-regional and

local level

3. Policy Background

The board of CRC welcomed the publication of the OFMDFM policy document, Together:

Building a United Community (T:BUC), which was launched on 23 May 2013 and will work

strenuously to assist in the development and implementation of many of its proposals.

The agenda to be tackled by the T:BUC policy is complex. The initiatives referred to in the

policy document include housing, education, projects aimed at young people, flags,

parades and protests, marking anniversaries and how to deal with the past. CRC believes

that, provided there is sufficient commitment along with adequate resources, the initiatives

outlined in the policy can build on the excellent work that already goes on in many

communities, supported by CRC and other organisations such as the District Councils. CRC

believes that the very visible and long standing difficulty in dealing with these issues on a

cross-party basis in the Assembly has contributed to the sense of ambiguity which affects

community relations work at all levels. CRC believes that consensus on the way forward at

Executive level is vital; otherwise it will appear that the community is expected to achieve a

level of unity which is beyond political leadership.

6  

 

CRC is uncertain whether the proposals, as they stand, will be capable of addressing the

complex mix of issues that link community relations to poverty and long-term social

disadvantage. The issues of education, regeneration and community safety are inextricably

linked to the more fluid issues of identity, cultural expression and community division. CRC

believes that the initiatives announced in Together: Building a United Community have the

potential to make an important contribution. In particular, CRC welcomes the focus on young

people. The reference in the document to other separate policies on victims and survivors,

children and young people, older people, race equality etc is welcome. The links between

these other policies and Together: Building a United Community need to be scoped, clearly

understood and monitored.

CRC also notes the intention of the policy to create a new independent and statutorily based

body called the Equality and Good Relations Commission. The role of the body will be to

provide advice to government and it is proposed that it will bring together the work of the

Equality Commission with some of the work currently undertaken by CRC. One of the

important features of CRC is its independence with which comes the responsibility, and need

for courage to speak the truth to power. CRC continues to believe that there is a need for

independence of thought to challenge public policy and programmes, but also to challenge

society as a whole to play its part in building and sustaining peace. CRC remains to be

persuaded that the current Executive proposals will do that.

CRC further notes that the term Good Relations is not defined in the document. This will

need to be addressed since ‘good relations’ is the goal of the policy and the rationale for

initiatives and methods that will be deployed. A shared understanding of what success

should look like will be essential. CRC awaits the details of these proposals and believes

that the changes must be tested to ensure that, at minimum, there will be no dilution of the

focus on equality or good relations as the new arrangements are put in place or thereafter.

Finally CRC was disappointed that the document made scant reference to the work of the

Council and the bodies it has supported over the last 23 years. It is important that the new

policy builds on the experience that is already available.

4. Conclusion

The Panel of Parties is taking place at an important time in our peace process. Much of

what we have achieved during the years since the peace agreement was signed has been

7  

 

based on pragmatic negotiations on a case by case basis. There are two general points that

we wish to make before dealing with the specific areas of concern to this submission.

Agreement on overarching principles – CRC believes that our society is reaching the

limits of what can be achieved by pragmatic negotiation on a case by case basis. To move

beyond the management of our difference to the acknowledgement of our diversity, CRC

believes it is time to enshrine principles that form the basis of our collective rights and

responsibilities to each other in relation to the remaining matters. Such a document could

form the foundation for the approach we take to many of the issues which the Panel of

Parties will be considering. If these principles were to be agreed across the three strands of

our peace settlement, it might provide security for all identities without prejudice to the wider

constitutional question.

Structures for sustaining peace – It can be as difficult to live within a peace settlement as

it is to negotiate it in the first place. CRC believes that our society has underestimated the

implications of this important point and that the negotiating structures for sustaining peace

should be revisited. Tensions and divisions will remain within Northern Ireland for the

foreseeable future and sporadically lead to violence and disturbances in the street.

Acknowledging this is not to be fatalistic, indifferent or undemanding of our peace process. It

is simply the reality of the difficulties of transforming a deeply divided society. Therefore we

suggest that the Panel of Parties should consider whether the ad-hoc approach taken to

these inevitable issues is, in itself, creating instability and an erosion of trust.

5. Summary of CRC papers on flags, parades and dealing with the past

This submission provides considerations and comment on issues which the Panel of Parties

has been asked to consider:-

Annex 1 Flags and related matters

Annex 2 Parades and protests

Annex 3 Dealing with the past

Flags and related matters

Flags are an emotive issue and we know that there are many factors that play a part in our

response to flags as individuals and communities. Context and shifting meanings or

interpretations over time make this a complex issue. Whether we choose to respond by

calling for a blanket ban on the flying of flags, a regulated approach that qualifies our

8  

 

freedom to fly flags, or negotiated settlements at the local level, it is increasingly clear that

doing nothing will be neither an effective nor a sustainable solution.

On the 3rd December 2012 when Belfast City Council voted to fly the union flag on

designated days few can have expected the level of unrest that followed. Responding to

the flag dispute the Northern Ireland Assembly affirmed the “absolute and unconditional

commitment of all its members to respecting and upholding the rule of law and the pursuit of

their political objectives by purely legal and political means”. This was an important unifying

statement but it was not sufficient to secure enduring peace and stability in relation to

cultural expression. The need for an all party Assembly agreement on the approach to flags

was recognised when OFMDFM produced its policy document Together: Building a United

Community. In relation to cultural expression, the policy document stated a commitment to

“...developing an open and tolerant society in which everyone is free to mark and celebrate

their identity, or indeed identities, in a peaceful and respectful manner.”

It recognised that “addressing the challenges will require a new emphasis on both tolerance

and respect and an active willingness on behalf of all those involved in celebrating their

tradition to acknowledge that we live in a society that is diverse in its make-up. Respect and

tolerance are important principles in any democratic society. These principles apply to both

those involved in celebrating their traditions and those who are not active participants. It is

vital that cultural expression is peaceful”.

The policy also recognised that “The fabric of our society is made up of many diverse parts –

representing different cultural backgrounds and identities. Within the context of an

increasingly diverse community, we must learn that expression of one cultural view is not a

direct or indirect threat to the expression of another.”

Local negotiations will always be important in implementing any overarching agreement and

in sustaining good community relations. However they cannot take the place of an

overarching agreement because they can too easily descend into a tit-for-tat show of

strength at the neighbourhood level. The Community Relations Council believes that the

development of the overarching policy is a very important aspect of the issues related to

flags.

Over the last ten months Community Relations Council has been meeting with the statutory

bodies, agencies, local government officers and voluntary/community organisations involved

9  

 

in issues pertaining to the display of flags in the public space and it is clear that information

is also needed on a number of other related aspects of this issue. These include

• The need for better understanding of the current legal and administrative

arrangements

• More information on the range of approaches to the display and removal of flags in

the public space taken by local authorities across Northern Ireland

• Ideas and options available to those negotiating local community agreements on the

flying of flags

CRC has worked with those engaged in this area to explore the issues and in response has

developed a document Managing the Display of Flags in the Public Space (Annex 1). The

first section deals with law and administration and the second deals with practical responses.

Whilst this document does not attempt to address the higher level policy framework, the

need for this was widely accepted in the discussions. CRC is finalising a paper which

collated the emerging policy issues. combined with analysis of the potential options for

change (legislatively, structurally and practically). CRC will forward this paper when

completed.

Parades and Protests

In a society that values freedom, any discussion on parades and protests must start by

saying that violence is condemned and attacks on the police are also unacceptable. The

quality of our democracy and our freedom to safely express different opinions depends, in

part, on the rule of law. Police officers, upholding the law on our behalf, should be supported

by the whole community, including those who wish to have their own way in a parade or

protest.

The discussion must also acknowledge that the images of conflict and violence do not depict

our whole story; they are not even the bigger part of it. Most parades, public

commemorations and protests pass off peacefully. In the same weekend that brought us the

violent images from Belfast city centre, the World Police and Fire Games held its closing

ceremony. The UK City of Culture programme continued in ‘Legend- derry’ with the All-

Ireland Fleadh officially opened by President Higgins. These are examples of a future which

could transcend the zero sum model of identity that has bedevilled us. It is very important

that the Panel of Parties discussions recognise that the majority of people who live here take

10  

 

no part in the zero sum game, are prepared to live and let live, are shamed by the images

that we are sending around the world and enraged that we are teaching our children to hate

again.

CRC believes that we cannot sustain peace that is built on “victory” for one side over

another. Whether we live in a United Kingdom or a united Ireland there will need to be a

place for everyone and all sides of the constitutional debate and the cultural clashes need to

demonstrate the leadership to help us grasp that point. Otherwise we will spend our lives,

and those of our children, holding our ground and shouting rights at each other. We should

not rely on others to adjudicate between us and subsequently to take the blame for our

behaviour when we are displeased with the outcome.

CRC has been less directly involved in this issue but it has often supported work to develop

good relations in areas where parades have been contentious. The Council has also dealt

with the aftermath of situations where community relations have been damaged. On the

basis of this experience we are forwarding a paper (annex 2) which we hope will assist the

work of the Panel of Parties and the organisation hopes that the current discussions will help

us to find a voluntary accommodation of our varied cultures.

Dealing with the past

Whether we choose to adjudicate the past, collect the stories of the past without judgement,

support those who have been hurt in the past, or reconcile with the past, we do not have the

options of ignoring it. This issue has been understandably difficult to address when we are

trying to maintain equilibrium in the present. Remembering and commemorating those who

died or were injured, whether in foreign war or civil conflict, is an important part of our

community acknowledgement of the sacrifices of previous generations. However those who

died in the conflict here are fresh in our memory and we carry with us the suffering and hurts

of the recent past as a real challenge in the present. This is all the more difficult when we

know there are still people in our community (across the constitutional divide) who believe

that violence is a justifiable means to the achievement of their political objective.

For over ten years the Community Relations Council has been able to provide financial and

development support in the form of grant schemes to those supporting victims and survivors

of the conflict with funds provided by OFMDFM (prior to the establishment of the new

Victim Support Service) and with the assistance of the European Union’s Peace Programme.

11  

 

This has been a volatile environment in which to work with many feeling hurt, pain, mistrust,

fear, suspicion and anger that victims have not received true acknowledgement or

recognition for the suffering they have had to carry. The challenge has been to help build

trusting relationships, to reduce the isolation felt by victims and survivors and to work

towards their integration into the everyday life and fabric of our society.

While for many reconciliation may be a step too far, the healing of broken relationships,

particularly at the community level, is an essential part of dealing with the past. Allowing

opportunities for those who have suffered most in the conflict to talk about their experiences,

to be heard, and to listen to the stories of others is important and a fundamental part of

moving forward both as individuals and as a community.

As we know it takes a big act of self denial to “live and let live” and not to feel that you have

betrayed your dead and injured; to be beside your former enemies. Our conflict was very

local and often very personal and people remember. In a small place we live near to those

that caused us hurt. Coming out of a long history of conflict, our troubles and our grief

should make it obvious that we are all different. We have different stories and we want to

remember different things. Antagonisms remain despite the long established political

settlement. There is pain, grief, anger and disappointment all around us. Memories are

personal whether we respond by public acts of remembrance or by our many quiet

moments.

Peace is therefore about the constant, daily, persistent acts of self-control. It has to be

created, day by day, by deliberate acts of forbearance and by finding positive ways of doing

things differently, to demonstrate to ourselves and others that we can be something new.

Dealing with a divided past when we are trying to build a shared future we regularly see

evidence of the risks we face but in the same events we can also see the possibility for

change if we choose to make it. Whether we like it or not, diversity is intrinsic to who we

were, who we are and who we will be in the future. If we accept this, we can choose to be a

society that will tolerate difference, acknowledge the value of freedom of expression, and

place respect for ourselves and others at the heart of all commemoration.

Since last year the Community Relations Council and Heritage Lottery Fund have been

working together to promote an open conversation about how we remember our past in the

12  

 

public sphere. At the outset we recognised the need for shared values that might underpin

our approach to remembering.

In the end we came up with a set of principles:

1. Start from the historical facts;

2. Recognise the implications and consequences of what happened;

3. Understand that different perceptions and interpretations exist;

4. Show how events and activities can deepen understanding of the period;

5. See the act of remembering in the context of an ‘inclusive and accepting society’

The principles are simple but they set a challenge for all of us, whether we are organising a

commemoration event or reacting to one. The purpose is not to make us all the same, in

what we think or do, but to help us recognise that we are different and that we should be free

to express our differences whilst being respectful of others. That is the underpinning social

contract that will allow difference to flourish in a shared space. If we can come to an

agreement about that, at all levels of society, we have the basis of moving forward without

fear of loss of identity or culture.

Earlier in 2012 the Community Relations Council and the Heritage Lottery Fund made a

practical contribution to the forthcoming decade of centenaries with a series of talks entitled

“Remembering the Future” which examined the period from 1912 to 1923, a time that

shaped many of our political and cultural allegiances today. Over the 10 weeks of the talks

we looked at many strands of our identity and the relationships that cross these islands

which were, and remain complex and intertwined. The recordings of the talks and many

other resources can be found on the webpage of the Community Relations Council

(www.nicrc.org.uk). Based on our work in this area annex 3 contains a paper which we

hope will be useful to Panel of Parties discussions.

CRC would welcome an opportunity to discuss this submission.

13  

 

Annex 1

Flags and Related Matters

14  

 

Managing the Display of Flags in the Public Space

September 2013

15  

 

Introduction

Flags are an emotive issue and some of the issues associated with them are a legacy of our

conflicted past. We know that there are many factors that play a part in our response to

flags as individuals and communities. Context and shifting meanings or interpretations over

time make this a complex issue. Whether we choose to respond by calling for a blanket ban

on the flying of flags, a regulated approach that qualifies our freedom to fly flags, or

negotiated settlements at the local level, we can probably all agree on one thing, doing

nothing will be neither an effective nor a sustainable solution.

Many people have worked hard to build a shared and reconciled society and to present us

as an attractive, safe and welcoming place to live, work and invest. At the same time

images of unrest are regularly transmitted on the internet, TV and newspapers. On the 3rd

December 2012 when Belfast City Council voted to fly the union flag on designated days few

can have expected the level of unrest that followed – peaceful protests, rioting, intimidation,

attacks on elected representatives and the police, and the loss of visitors to the restaurants,

bars and shops of Belfast as people adapted, altered their plans and left the city to avoid the

unrest. For a time the level of anger appeared to be beyond a political response, an

expression of rage that heritage and identity was being erased.

In response to the flag dispute earlier in the year the Northern Ireland Assembly affirmed the

“absolute and unconditional commitment of all its members to respecting and upholding the

rule of law and the pursuit of their political objectives by purely legal and political means”.

This was an important unifying statement but it was not a sufficient response to the issues

raised during the flag dispute nor could it secure enduring peace and stability in relation to

cultural expression. The need for an all party Assembly agreement on the approach to flags

was recognised when OFMDFM produced its policy document Together: Building a United

Community on 23rd May 2013 to “reflect the Executive’s commitment to improving

community relations and building a united and shared society”. In relation to cultural

expression, the policy document stated a commitment to –

“...developing an open and tolerant society in which everyone is free to mark and celebrate

their identity, or indeed identities, in a peaceful and respectful manner.”

It recognised that “addressing the challenges will require a new emphasis on both tolerance

and respect and an active willingness on behalf of all those involved in celebrating their

tradition to acknowledge that we live in a society that is diverse in its make-up. Respect and

tolerance are important principles in any democratic society. These principles apply to both

16  

 

those involved in celebrating their traditions and those who are not active participants. It is

vital that cultural expression is peaceful”.

The policy also recognised that –

“The fabric of our society is made up of many diverse parts – representing different cultural

backgrounds and identities. Within the context of an increasingly diverse community, we

must learn that expression of one cultural view is not a direct or indirect threat to the

expression of another.”

These statements and the commitment to “Establish an All Party Group, with an independent

chair, to consider and make recommendations on matters including parades and protests;

flags, symbols, emblems and related matters; and the past;” are very welcome if we are to

stabilise the situation in relation to cultural expression and create an open, welcoming and

united community.

Local negotiations will always be important in implementing any overarching agreement and

in sustaining good community relations. However they cannot take the place of an

overarching agreement because they can too easily descend into a tit-for-tat show of

strength at the neighbourhood level. The Community Relations Council believes that the

development of the overarching policy is a very important aspect of the flags issue.

In discussion with many of the agencies currently involved in flag issues it has become clear

to the Community Relations Council that information and guidance is also needed on a

number of other related matters. These include –

• The current legal and administrative arrangements

• The range of approaches to flying flags taken by local authorities across NI

(appendix 1)

• The options and best practice available to those negotiating local community

agreements on the flying of flags

Managing the Display of Flags in the Public Space was developed in response to these

issues and to assist those working on flag disputes at the local level. The first section deals

with law and administration, and the second deals with practical responses.

17  

 

We would like to thank Dominic Bryan for his assistance to our staff with consultations and

his invaluable input to the content of this document. Thanks are also due to Bebhinn

McKinley, our policy officer who played a leading role in co-ordinating this work and to all the

agencies that took part in the discussions which further informed the contents of this paper.

We hope it provides useful information which can be updated as new ideas and methods

emerge to support our diverse expressions of identity.

18  

 

Part One: Context – the legislation, law

1. Legislation relating to the display or removal of the display of flags in public space

There are a range legislative powers which may affect the flying of flags in the public space.

Responsibility for such legislation rests with the legislature (Northern Ireland Assembly)

though the implementation and enforcement of legislation largely rests with the Executive

and relevant departments or agencies. It should be noted that the list provided below is as

comprehensive as possible but may not be exhaustive. The key pieces of legislation are

• Terrorism Act 2000 (Section 13)

• Public Order (NI) Order 1987 (Sections 9. 18, 19 and 23)

• Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations (NI) 1992 (Rule 4)

• Roads (NI) Order 1993 (Section 87)

• Public Processions (NI) Act 1998

• Fair Employment and Treatment (NI) Order (Amended 2003) (Article 3A)

Other legislation has been referenced as being potentially relevant. The following have been

referenced by stakeholders but none have been legally tested. Councils believe that there is

no legislation which directly addresses flag issues but legislation currently being developed

under Local Government Reform could.

• Northern Ireland Act 1998 (Sections 75 and 76)

• Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations (NI) 1998 (Schedule 3, Class 7)

• Planning (NI) Order 1991 (Article 67)

• Protection from Harassment Order 1997 (Articles 3, 4 and 6)

• Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973

• Protection of the Person and Property (NI) Act 1969 (Section 1)

• Local Government Act (NI) 1972

• The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (NI) Order 1985 (Article 18) (as

amended by Section 36, Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act (NI) 2011

Further information regarding some of the above legislation is provided below

Roadsides: Communication from Department of Regional Development (Oct 2011) clarifies

that there is no process for obtaining permission to fly flags or emblems on Road Service

property including lampposts, trees and other structures adjacent to roads. Further Section

19  

 

87 of the Roads (Northern Ireland) Order 19931 gives the Roads Service authority to remove

‘advertisements, pictures, signs, etc.’ erected ‘without lawful authority’2. The Roads Service

can also provide support facilities to take down ‘unwanted flags where there is agreement

within the local community to do so’.

Private Property: In relation to private property, there is a clear link with current planning

legislation, under which flags and emblems are currently defined as ‘advertisements’3.

Therefore under this definition the consent to display a flag or emblem requires consent from

the DoE under Section 4 of the Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations

(Northern Ireland) 19924. This however does not apply to the ‘national flag of any

country’ which can under Class I of Schedule 2 be displayed ‘on a single flagstaff’.

The Terrorism Act Under the Terrorism Act 2000 those displaying symbols of proscribed

organisations could be prosecuted. It states that:5

13.—(1) A person in a public place commits an offence if he—

(a) wears an item of clothing, or

(b) wears, carries or displays an article, in such a way or in such circumstances as to

arouse reasonable suspicion that he is a member or supporter of a proscribed

organisation.

List of Proscribed Organisations of which it is an Offence to Display Flags of

Emblems (for further detail on the proscription process and full list of proscribed

organisations and see Appendices 2 &3)

• The Irish Republican Army.

• Cumann na mBan.

• Fianna na hEireann.

• The Red Hand Commando.

• Saor Eire.

• The Ulster Freedom Fighters.

• The Ulster Volunteer Force6.                                                                                                                          1 Roads (Northern Ireland) Order 1993: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/nisi/1993/3160/contents/made. Section 87 is reproduced at Appendix 1. 2 AQW 539/11-15 answered 24 June 2011. 3 AQO 631/11 answered 30 November 2010. 4 Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1992: http://www.planningni.gov.uk/index/advice/advice_legislation/advice_all_legislation/sub-legislation-1992-448.pdf. 5 Section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/pdfs/ukpga_20000011_en.pdf.

20  

 

• The Irish National Liberation Army.

• The Irish People’s Liberation Organisation.

• The Ulster Defence Association.

• The Loyalist Volunteer Force.

• The Continuity Army Council.

• The Orange Volunteers.

• The Red Hand Defenders.

2. Key agencies that currently have operational involvement in the removal of flags

Ultimately those who are responsible for the removal of flags being displayed in the public

space are those engaged in their erection. However it should be recognised that on many

occasions other agencies are required to provide this role. Below are some of the

circumstances when particular agencies have operational involvement.

Police Service of Northern Ireland: Leading organisation in the implementation of the Joint

Protocol. Flags and emblems of a proscribed organization; where disorder is likely to occur;

Roads Service of the Department for Regional Development: On or adjacent to a public

road

Northern Ireland Housing Executive: On Housing Executive Property; as part of a broad

environmental improvement project; Where requested by local representatives

Department of the Environment Planning Services: In relation to advertisements

regarding private property

Local Council: On council owned property such as facilities and amenities

NIE: On Northern Ireland Electricity equipment

BT and other Telecommunications Companies: On own property

3. Interrelated Human Rights

In relation to the flying of flags and the restrictions that may be placed upon such displays,

there are several international human rights obligations which may be pertinent.

• Right to Culture/ Cultural Identity

• Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

• Freedom of expression                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          6 There is some debate in regards to whether UVF with the date 1912/1913 are historical rather than proscribed

21  

 

• Right to Equality & Non- Discrimination

• Right to Property

• Right to Family and Private Life

• Promotion of Tolerance, Mutual Respect and Understanding

• Protection of Minorities

There are specific human rights instruments which may enable or restrict the ability to

display flags in the public space such as

• Human Rights Act 1998

• European Convention Human Rights

• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966

4. Policy Context on Display of Flags in Public Space (NI) Joint Protocol in relation to

the Display of Flags in Public Areas (for full version see Appendix 4)

The first policy document to explicitly deal with the contentious display of flags, was ‘The

Joint Protocol In Relation To the Display of Flags in Public Areas’ (2005). This aimed to

provide a basis on which the removal of all flags from arterial routes and town centres could

be dealt with effectively. It included

• the removal of all paramilitary flags and displays

• the control of the display of flags in certain areas

• the limitation on when flags could be flown and for how long

• to secure local agreement that tattered flags don’t enhance the local environment

The “Flags Protocol” is a joint agreement by

• Police Service of NI

• Department of Social Development

• Department of Regional Development - Roads Service

• Department of the Environment – Planning Services

• NI Housing Executive

• Office of the First Minister deputy First Minister

22  

 

The Joint Flags Protocol references the need to ‘take cognisance of the contents of the

Human Rights Act 1998’ specifically referring to European Charter of Human rights,

including

Article 5 - Right to liberty and security.

Article 6 - Right to a fair trial.

Article 7 - No punishment without law.

Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life.

Article 9 - Freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

Article 10 - Freedom of Expression.

Article 14 - Prohibition of Discrimination.

Protocol 1 of Article 1 - Protection of Property.

The “Flags Protocol” has never been fully implemented and it has been largely considered

ineffective in coordinating action by statutory bodies. Research by QUB also indicates that

there has been a lack of communication regarding the “Flags Protocol” with those either

displaying flags or those with responsibilities for their removal.

The implications of the absence of an implemented, co-ordinated and monitored “Flags

Protocol” are evident in the 2010 QUB Monitoring Report which indicates that about 30% of

flags remain up for longer than 3 months and the number of flags in absolute terms remains

relatively constant. In addition the location (outside public amenities), content and the length

of time they are on display are of significance.

This affects personal safety and access to public amenities, housing and workplaces.

Having now entered what is referred to as the “decade of commemorations” the issue of

flags, their location and duration of their display, is likely to become an ever greater issue.

The draft Cohesion, Sharing and Integration Strategy (2010) also highlighted the importance

of addressing the issue of flags and working for the removal of “threatening and divisive

symbols such as paramilitary flags, racist and sectarian graffiti, paramilitary murals and

territorial markers, where these are used in an attempt to intimidate.”

23  

 

Part Two – Developing a Local Approach

As highlighted in the A Shared Future Policy document (2005), “legislation, whilst important,

is only one element of a comprehensive response. The removal of “inappropriate and

aggressive” displays of flags (specifically paramilitary flags and any other displays which

have the effect of intimidating or harassing) requires a collective response. It also

recognised that any approach to the management of displays of flags in the public space

requires an approach of a “common project with agencies working collaboratively with the

police, elected representatives and local communities as part of environmental

improvements with a view to enhancing the areas economically and building trust.”

1. Potential Principles

While this document is not intended to offer guidance on the official display of flags on

government or local authority buildings a useful starting point for those engaged in the

display or removal of flags in the public space is perhaps an examination of the official flag

flying protocols across the UK and Ireland. (See appendix 3) In relation to the display of

flags in the public space, the Community Relations Council would suggest that a useful

starting point should be developing core principles to shape and guide such a process.

Below are some of the core principles with have emerged through discussions with

stakeholders:

Overarching principle

In this multi-cultural society, rights have to be balanced by responsibilities. All celebrations of

identity must be lawful and those wishing to display flags or emblems in public space need

to be mindful of the potential impact this may have on community relations in the vicinity and

further afield. Everyone has a right to celebrate their culture but it is paramount

that all citizens should be able to enjoy a life free from provocation or intimidation.

Core Principles to shape approach and practice

• Acknowledge – freedom of expression and the importance of expressing cultural

identity in the public space/shared space in cities, towns and villages

• Respect – for governance, law procedures, appropriate authorities and citizens

24  

 

• Cultural celebration – should acknowledge flags/symbols particularly significant for

those in community, and also challenging for others in the same community

• Consider – the perceptions and impacts of flag flying on others

• Recognise - the relevant rights and responsibilities but be mindful that these rights

are not absolute

• Ensure – that flags are treated with respect, from erection to removal and/or disposal

• Freedom from intimidation – those engaged in the display of flags in the public

space should ensure that the type, association and location of the flag and duration

of the display does not impinge on another’s freedom from intimidation

2. Developing Practice

Approaches and Local Protocols

Part one of this document set out the current legal and administrative arrangements. This

section attempts to highlight different approaches and practice.

CRC considers that any future overarching inter-agency action plan or Protocol that is

developed should take cognisance of the enhanced role of local councils following the

implementation of Local Government Reform specifically regarding

• the power of general competencies,

• the community planning model.

It is important to recognise that those within communities who engage in the display of flags

in public space are responsible for resulting actions. It is also important to recognise that

any approach requires attitudinal and behavioural shifts which can take a period of time to

develop. Central to the latter, attitude surveys conducted by Northern Ireland Life and Times

have consistently demonstrated that from 2006 onwards the majority (over 70%) of

respondees did not support the display of flags from lampposts in neighbourhoods.7

                                                                                                                         7 NILT, 2006, 2007,2008,2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/results/comrel.html

25  

 

In supporting those individuals, groups, organisations and agencies seeking to engage in

developing a local approach, agreement or negotiation, there are a broad range of examples

of differing approaches listed below

Approach

Agencies directly attempting to mediate and negotiate with those either directly responsible

or those that have lines of communication with those who are responsible for erecting flags

Engaging independent facilitators or mediators to facilitate agreements or removal

Developing local community relations/ cross community flags forums to bring a range of

actors around the table to discuss the issue of the contentious display of flags and seek

approaches through consensus to put in place resolutions

Developing single identity flags forums with council officers or political representatives acting

as conduits to agree dates for flag flying and their removal

Developing local community flags protocols which have an informal standing.

Putting in place programmes to increase community capacity and create dialogue

opportunities regarding perspectives on flag flying

Supporting the establishment of community/residents groups within areas where internal flag

flying was high to enable members of the wider community to have a voice regarding the

nature of the flag flying with those responsible for their erection.

Developing formal flags protocols at the district council level

The merits of developing an effective approach include:

• Direct engagement helps to build relationships with key community representatives

and develops engagement on contentious issues

• Provision of incentives to communities to consider alternatives to both the flying of

flags associated with proscribed organisations and the flying of flags without

permission could support engagement and dialogue

26  

 

• Ensures all relevant stakeholders are involved

• Supporting and enabling local agreements to be reached

• Ensures equal treatment of all community affiliated flags

• Engages those who erect flags and who may not normally be involved in formal

protocols

• Skilled impartial external mediators can support resolution and agreement

• Inter-agency approaches can support cohesive, joined up approach and

communication.

There are of course challenges involved in developing an effective approach. Whilst those

noted below may not be mitigated in their entirety, they should be given due consideration to

enable steps to be taken to attempt to address them.

Some challenges identified may include:

• Sustaining engagement with key individuals and wider community

• Ensuring incentives provided to stimulate dialogue and agreement regarding the

display of flags do not become misused

• Cost and resource implications for those engaged

• Lack of strong leadership either at community or statutory level

• Difficult to both firstly achieve and then maintain local agreements

• Lack of awareness and ownership either for the display of flags or those with

responsibility for the removal at local level

• Some community representatives not being engaging of having limited desire to

engage in discussions or action to manage the display of flags

• Role of media in reporting stories accurately

• Ensuring strong and consistent support of local elected representatives

• The imposing of a generic protocol across the district council area could be

counterproductive and divisive.

Other matters for consideration

While there are many positive examples to address these issues what has clearly emerged

is that there is a lack of consistency of approach across the region between district councils.

While it is important to recognise that a one size fits all approach may not be appropriate, the

lack of a consistent approach is also problematic. Where change has been attempted,

27  

 

progress has been dependent on a number of factors:

• the scale and scope of the level of such displays

• the relationships between individuals within community and/or between agencies at a

local level

• the demographic features within areas

• understanding both at community and statutory level of the current Joint Flags

Protocol

• level or appetite for creating change

• current local and/or regional political and social environment.

Through discussions engaged in the development of this guide it emerged that there is a

broad consensus that some form regulation is required, but limited agreement on what

shape or form regulation should or could take.

Also whilst there is clearly a significant level of activity taking place to support resolving

contentious flag flying, the necessity for a an overarching protocol for all agencies and their

officers to work within remains critical.

3. Key Agencies who could contribute to developing a local approach

The Community Relations Council recognises that there are a broad range of organisations,

departments and agencies that have a remit for managing the display and removal of flags

in the public space. It is recognised that to ensure dialogue and discussions, agreements

and actions are carried out in an effective way requires the engagement within a coordinated

approach and process.

In developing a localised approach in addition to those with an operational involvement

remit, it would be useful to also seek representation from key organisations that could

provide support and guidance to the development of any process (see appendix 6).

4. Further Information and support

While this document seeks to provide information to support those engaged at a practical

level in this area, there are other external issues that need to be included. A core element to

the success of any initiatives will be the existence of significant political and community

leadership and commitment at all levels. This must be actively and sincerely demonstrated.

28  

 

This political and community leadership needs to bring forward a new vision to enable the

important right of celebration of identity and culture to be assured, but which also protects

others where such displays transcend beyond these rights and become an overt display of

territory, intimidation, threat and power. If such actions are not taken, these displays will be

persistently damaging to the economic and tourism potential of our society, and if cannot find

resolution our communities and society will continue to be caught in the legacy of the past,

from which there will be no escape even for future generations.

We have a finite opportunity to tackle, address and overcome these issues. It will require to

us all to make difficult accommodations, but it is imperative that we seize this opportunity to

ensure a positive legacy for all our futures.

29  

 

Appendix 1: Policies of Northern Ireland Councils (Belfast City Council Policy on the

Flying of the Union Flag EQIA June 2012

Union flag flown

Council Frequency Location Alternative policy

1 Antrim every day 2 buildings

2 Ards every day HQ + 4 other

buildings

3 Armagh designated days HQ

4 Ballymena every day HQ + 2 other

buidlings

5 Ballymoney designated +2 3 buildings

6 Banbridge every day HQ

7 Carrickfergus every day HQ

8 Castlereagh every day HQ

9 Coleraine every day

when building is in use

2 buildings

10 Cookstown No flags

11 Craigavon designated + others HQ + others

12 Derry No flags

13 Down Neutral flag

14 Dungannon designated HQ

15 Fermanagh No flags

16 Larne every day HQ

17 Limavady No flags

18 Lisburn designated +2 HQ

19 Magherafelt No flags

20 Moyle No flags

21 Newry &

Mourne

No flags

22 Newtownabbey every day every building

23 North Down every day 3 buildings

24 Omagh Neutral flag

25 Strabane No flags

30  

 

Appendix 2: Terrorism Act 2000 Part II Section 3 Proscription

(1) For the purposes of this Act an organisation is proscribed if—

(a) it is listed in Schedule 2, or

(b) it operates under the same name as an organisation listed in that Schedule.

(2) Subsection (1)(b) shall not apply in relation to an organisation listed in Schedule 2 if its

entry is the subject of a note in that Schedule.

(3) The Secretary of State may by order—

(a) add an organisation to Schedule 2;

(b) remove an organisation from that Schedule;

(c) amend that Schedule in some other way.

(4) The Secretary of State may exercise his power under subsection (3)(a) in respect of an

organisation only if he believes that it is concerned in terrorism.

(5) For the purposes of subsection (4) an organisation is concerned in terrorism if it—

(a) commits or participates in acts of terrorism,

(b) prepares for terrorism,

(c) promotes or encourages terrorism, or

(d) is otherwise concerned in terrorism.

(5A) The cases in which an organisation promotes or encourages terrorism for the purposes

of subsection (5)(c) include any case in which activities of the organisation—

(a) include the unlawful glorification of the commission or preparation (whether in the

past, in the future or generally) of acts of terrorism; or

(b) are carried out in a manner that ensures that the organisation is associated with

statements containing any such glorification.

(5B) The glorification of any conduct is unlawful for the purposes of subsection (5A) if there

are persons who may become aware of it who could reasonably be expected to infer that

what is being glorified, is being glorified as—

(a) conduct that should be emulated in existing circumstances, or

(b) conduct that is illustrative of a type of conduct that should be so emulated.

31  

 

(5C)In this section—

• “glorification” includes any form of praise or celebration, and cognate expressions are

to be construed accordingly;

• “statement” includes a communication without words consisting of sounds or images

or both.

(6) Where the Secretary of State believes—

(a) that an organisation listed in Schedule 2 is operating wholly or partly under a

name that is not specified in that Schedule (whether as well as or instead of under

the specified name), or

(b) that an organisation that is operating under a name that is not so specified is

otherwise for all practical purposes the same as an organisation so listed, he may, by

order, provide that the name that is not specified in that Schedule is to be treated as

another name for the listed organisation.

(7) Where an order under subsection (6) provides for a name to be treated as another name

for an organisation, this Act shall have effect in relation to acts occurring while—

(a) the order is in force, and

(b) the organisation continues to be listed in Schedule 2,

as if the organisation were listed in that Schedule under the other name, as well as

under the name specified in the Schedule.

(8) The Secretary of State may at any time by order revoke an order under subsection (6) or

otherwise provide for a name specified in such an order to cease to be treated as a name for

a particular organisation.

(9) Nothing in subsections (6) to (8) prevents any liability from being established in any

proceedings by proof that an organisation is the same as an organisation listed in Schedule

2, even though it is or was operating under a name specified neither in Schedule 2 nor in an

order under subsection (6)

32  

 

Appendix 3: Terrorism Act 2000 – Schedule 2 Proscribed Organisations (Full List)

Egyptian Islamic

Jihad

Lashkar e Tayyaba Kurdistan Workers’ Party

(Partiya Karkeren Kurdistan)

(PKK)

Al Ittihad Al Islamia

Al-Gama’at al-

Islamiya

Liberation Tigers of

Tamil Eelam (LTTE)

Revolutionary Peoples’

Liberation Party—Front

(Devrimci Halk Kurtulus Partisi-

Cephesi) (DHKP-C)

Ansar Al Islam

Armed Islamic Group

(Groupe Islamique

Armée)(GIA)

The military wing of

Hizballah, including

the Jihad Council

and all units

reporting to it

(including the

Hizballah External

Security

Organisation).

Basque Homeland and Liberty

(Euskadi ta Askatasuna) (ETA)

Ansar Al Sunna

Salafist Group for Call

and Combat (Groupe

Salafiste pour la

Prédication et le

Combat) (GSPC)

Hamas-Izz al-Din

al-Qassem

Brigades

17 November Revolutionary

Organisation (N17)

Groupe Islamique

Combattant Marocain

Babbar Khalsa Palestinian Islamic

Jihad—Shaqaqi

Abu Sayyaf Group Harakat-ul-Jihad-ul-Islami

International Sikh

Youth Federation

Abu Nidal

Organisation

Asbat Al-Ansar Harakat-ul-Jihad-ul-Islami

(Bangladesh)

Harakat Mujahideen Islamic Army of

Aden

Islamic Movement of

Uzbekistan

Al-Ghurabaa

Al-Qa’ida Lashkar-e Jhangvi Libyan Islamic Fighting Group Sipah-e Sahaba Pakistan

Islamic Jihad Union Jamaat ul-Furquan Jundallah Khuddam ul-Islam

The Saved Sect Baluchistan

Liberation Army

Teyrebaz Azadiye Kurdistan. Jammat-ul Mujahideen

Bangladesh

Tehrik Nefaz-e

Shari'at Muhammadi

33  

 

Appendix 4: Joint Protocol in Relation to the Display of Flags in Public Areas

1.0. INTRODUCTION

1.1 The display of flags, in the Northern Ireland context, is an emotive issue, which has

existed for some time. Flags may be used for many purposes which can include:

(a) celebration of cultural identity;

(b) marking a festive event;

(c) sectarianism or intimidation;

(d) marking out of territory.

1.2 The use of flags in instances such as celebration or festivity are not normally an

issue. However, the use of flags for other more sinister purposes is of more concern

and is unacceptable in a peaceful and tolerant society.

1.3 The issue of flags supporting proscribed organisations is clearer in that the display of

such flags is illegal. What can be less clear is what constitutes such a flag in the

eyes of the law.

1.4 Often the reason for the display of flags is perceived in different ways by different

members of the community. What seems perfectly acceptable to one side is an

insult or worse to the other side.

1.5 There are often misconceptions regarding the powers of police and other agencies in

dealing with flags issues. In particular, police are mainly concerned with the display

of flags supporting proscribed organisations, where flags are likely to cause a breach

of the Peace or for other possible criminal intent. It is reasonable to say that in

recent times there has been a willingness, in some areas, to adopt a new attitude to

the display of flags and related issues, which has helped improve the environment in

these areas. However, there are many examples of aggressive displays which aim

to intimidate and harass.

1.6 This protocol sets out an agreed partnership approach in dealing with flags issues

between the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the Department of the Environment,

Department for Regional Development, Department for Social Development, Office of

34  

 

the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, and the Northern Ireland Housing

Executive. In time it is hoped that all local councils will examine this protocol and

adopt it as a way forward for the community in Northern Ireland.

2.0 JOINT AIMS

2.1 To improve the environment by removing the display of paramilitary flags or flags of a

sectarian nature.

2.2 To develop a partnership approach, which allows the agencies involved to impact on

the flags issue in a cohesive manner.

2.3 To develop a strategic and graduated response to the flags issue which involves

consultation, shared understanding, negotiation and, if necessary, proportionate and

legal use of enforcement methods.

2.4 To provide a proactive approach, with the support of communities and their

representatives, to address:

• The removal of all flags and emblems from arterial routes and town centres;

• The removal of all paramilitary flags and displays;

• The control of displays of flags and emblems in particular areas: e.g.: mixed and

interface areas and near buildings such as schools, hospitals, places of worship and

community halls;

• Flag flying should be limited to particular times and particular dates; and that:

• where flags are displayed for a festive or other occasion, that the display

is reasonably time-bounded and that:

• flags, including plastic ties, tape and poles, should be removed by the

community after the agreed period;

• To encourage communities to accept that flags displayed which are tattered and torn

or discoloured do not enhance the environment and should be removed.

3.0 CORE ISSUES

3.1 This protocol and any actions arising therefrom will take cognisance of the contents

of the Human Rights Act 1998 and, in particular:

35  

 

Article 5 - Right to liberty and security.

Article 6 - Right to a fair trial.

Article 7 - No punishment without law.

Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life.

Article 9 - Freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

Article 10 - Freedom of Expression.

Article 14 - Prohibition of Discrimination.

Protocol 1 of Article 1 - Protection of Property.

3.2 In particular, any actions under this protocol must be necessary, proportionate and

legal in line with the general principles of Human Rights.

3.3 Whichever agency is placed in the most effective position to consult, negotiate or

resolve situations will take the lead and will be supported by the other partners within

their remit and specialism. Where the display is one that is causing community

tension or is affecting the quality of life for a community, then the police will take the

lead.

3.4 In addition, in carrying out their functions under this protocol, the various partners will

take cognisance of their statutory duties under Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act

1998 and, in particular, their duty of promoting good relations between persons of

different religious belief, political opinion or racial group.

3.5 Each partner agrees to keep other partners abreast of changes in policy, operations

or actions, which may affect this protocol or operational decisions deriving from it.

3.6 Each partner will provide its support or services, for operational action, within its own

budgets in a spirit of mutual operational support.

4.0 KEY RESPONSIBILITIES

4.1 The Police Service will support partners and, where best placed, will take forward

consultation and negotiation with local community representatives where the display

of flags is an issue.

36  

 

4.2 Where necessary, the Police Service will take the lead in the removal of flags where

the partner agency is unable to take action, and where negotiation and consultation

have failed or where such items must be seized as evidence for Court purposes.

4.3 Where other partners seek to remove flags and any disorder or other criminality is

evident or likely to occur, the Police Service will provide support or take the lead,

where appropriate.

4.4 Where the Police Service seek to take action or initiate prosecution regarding flags

issues, partner agencies will provide any evidential material, which they have, to

support such action or prosecution.

4.5 Roads Service, when called upon by a lead Agency, will provide partnership support

facilities such as Mobile Extendable Working Platforms (‘Tower Wagons’) to take

down unwanted flags that have been agreed but not removed by the community

themselves.

4.6 The Northern Ireland Housing Executive will take the lead where it is proposed to

address the removal of flags as part of a broader environmental improvement project;

or where requested by local community representatives.

4.7 The role of the DOE Planning services in relation to flags will stem from the

application of the Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations (NI) 1992 and

action will be taken, in consultation with the PSNI and other partner agencies, where

circumstances permit.

5.0 INFORMATION EXCHANGE

5.1 Each partner agrees to provide relevant and necessary information to other partner

agencies, to support actions being taken in relation to flags issues.

5.2 The exchange of information will be subject to confidentiality, where so indicated.

5.3 No exchange of information will take place where this is likely to contravene the Data

Protection Act, or similar legislation or a confidentiality agreement.

37  

 

6.0 MEASURING SUCCESS

6.1 It is difficult to measure success in these matters as a result of this protocol and its

operation. There are many extraneous factors, which can influence these situations.

6.2 The qualitative measure of success will be an improvement in the environment

leading towards a more peaceful and tolerant society.

6.3 Quantitative measures may include the number of complaints regarding flags, the

number removed voluntarily, the number removed by enforcement and the number of

prosecutions.

7.0 REVIEW

7.1 This protocol will be subject to review after its first year or earlier if necessary.

38  

 

Appendix 5: Official Flag Flying Protocols

1. UK England, Scotland and Wales

In England, Wales or Scotland the flying of flags is not the subject of statute law. However

responsibility for issuing guidance on the flying of national flags on government buildings

falls to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS apart from those which are the

responsibility of a devolved administration. There are 15 appointed days each year and 4

additional saints’ days when the Union Flag is flown in the respective units of the UK, in

England there are 16 days, including St George’s Day.

Additionally the Union Flag is flown for the State Opening of Parliament and the prorogation.

The Union Flag may be flown on all days of the year from government buildings and is also

flown for visiting Heads of State or the death of Heads of State. When Parliament is sitting,

the Union Flag is flown from the Victoria Tower of the Palace of Westminster. The Union

Flag is not flown while Parliament is in recess and will only be hoisted on the appointed

days.

2. Republic of Ireland

The Department of the Taoiseach has general responsibility in relation to the National Flag

and is primarily concerned with the protocol for the flying of the flag and its role as such

therefore, is an advisory one.

Guidance from the Department of the Taoiseach also details that when the National Flag has

become worn or frayed it is no longer fit for display, and should not be used in any manner

implying disrespect.

It further details that the National Flag should be displayed in the open only between sunrise

and sunset, except on the occasion of public meetings, processions, or funerals, when it

may be displayed for the duration of such functions.

It is the normal practice to fly the National Flag daily at all military posts and from a limited

number of important State buildings. The specified dates that the National Flag is flown on

St Patrick’s Day (the National Holiday), Easter Sunday and Easter Monday (in

39  

 

commemoration of the Rising of 1916), and the National Day of Commemoration on the

Sunday closest to 11 July (the date of the Anglo-Irish Truce in 1921).

On these occasions the National Flag is flown from all State buildings throughout the country

which are equipped with flagpoles. However it is also flown on the occasion of other

significant national and local events such as festivals and commemorations.

3. Northern Ireland

In Northern Ireland the Flags (Northern Ireland) Order 2000 came into force on 11 November

2000 and gave the Secretary of State the power under Article 3(1) ‘to make regulations

regulating the flying of flags at government buildings ’which would remain in force for as long

as the Order was in force’. Under Article 3(2) a “government building” is defined as a building

wholly or mainly occupied by members of the Northern Ireland Civil Service.

Article 2(1) of the regulations state that ‘the Union Flag shall be flown at the government

buildings specified in Part I of the Schedule to these Regulations on the days specified in

Part II of the Schedule’. Part I of the Schedule is a list of specified government buildings on

which the Union Flag must be flown and Part II of the Schedule refers to the days on which

the Union Flag must be flown. The flying of flags at government buildings, otherwise stated

in the Regulations, is prohibited.

40  

 

Appendix 6: Additional Agencies and Organisations that could contribute to

developing a localised approach

Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister

Department for Social Development

Department of Agriculture and Rural Development

Department of Justice

Department of the Environment – Planning Service

Arts Council of Northern Ireland

Parades Commission

Community Relations Council

Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission

Equality Commission Northern Ireland

Department of Education and Local Education and Library Boards

BT and other telecommunications providers

Policing and Community Safety Partnerships

Local District Councils

41  

 

Annex 2

Parades and Protests

42  

 

Introduction

A fundamental challenge facing a society emerging from conflict is to move from antagonism

to a peace based on real justice for all, trust, and recognition of the value of diversity and the

contribution to be made by people from different backgrounds.

There are a number of what CRC has called matters of culture, touching on allegiance,

identity and security, which ‘have the capacity to draw whole groups into hostility and set off

a cycle of action and reaction which gives fuel to deeper fears and angers’. Parades are one

of these matters of culture that can have a significant impact on community relations. For

many, parades play an important role in cultural celebration, remembrance and

commemoration, yet there some parades that remain sources of dispute and have the

potential to threaten peace, stability, prosperity and the creation of a shared and better future

for all. The recent Peace Monitoring Report (Nolan 2013) highlighted that the ‘continuing

absence of any agreed strategy for flags, parades or dealing with the past left the political

establishment vulnerable’, and that ‘public order and the rule of law was undermined by the

lack of shared commitment to existing institutions like the Parades Commission and by the

absence of clear agreed understandings on the legislation governing public protest’.

Parading and its associated problems is a concern not just for those parading and those

protesting, but for the entire community. The contested nature of some parades and

protests are a symptom of much wider issues, but also a contributory factor to them. It is

critical that we seek to resolve the deep underlying issues which continue to produce cultural

antagonism. Cultural displays need to be entirely free of intimidation and threat to any

person or community. Protests need to be peaceful and based on a respect for the people

on parade and their rights. Freedom of speech and peaceful assembly should be a reality

which everyone enjoys, without fearing that their safety or their fundamental rights are at

risk.

Context

These talks offer a new opportunity for dialogue for civic and political society to agree a new

tone and understanding of parading. The North Inquiry (1997) established the current

structures to adjudicate on parades. There has been mixed reaction to the Parades

Commission and this has resulted in calls for either a new structure or new legislation. The

43  

 

Strategic Review in 2008 and the 2010 public consultation on a proposed Public Assemblies

and Protest Bill struggled to achieve an alternative consensus based solution8.

Furthermore, we are now in a very intense period of remembering. This comprises the

‘Decade of Centenaries’ but also the very recent past. It is this recentness and the fact that

we have not yet been able to reach a consensus on how we deal with the past that could

prove very difficult in terms of parading. The recent parading dispute in Castlederg revealed

the complexity of feelings around parading such as the deep trauma experienced by a small

community as well as the desire for individuals and groups to remember. The emotions that

transpire at these events reveal the hearts and minds issues that need to be tackled as well.

Next Steps

What needs to happen over the next few months? CRC believes the Panel of Parties talks

offer a critical opportunity. If parading is to be resolved, we need to see a new climate of

accommodation and tolerance which impacts on public space, cultural celebration and our

cultural and educational institutions.

These deliberations should be far-reaching and enable a diversity of voices to speak into the

debate. It would be particularly useful to hear from groups who whilst not directly involved in

arranging parades or protest can experience both positive and negative impacts. CRC has

links with a range of groups, either directly or through signposting, and we would be keen to

facilitate such meetings with the working group.

CRC Contribution

Our submission sets out Council’s involvement in assisting others to find solutions to

problems surrounding parades and protests, and will highlight key policy comments made by

CRC under a number of key headings. Finally, the submission will draw attention to some

other issues that need to be considered by those involved in the Panel of Parties talks.

                                                                                                                         8CRC  has  made  policy  comment  in  submissions  to  OFMDFM’s  Public  Assemblies,  Parades  and  Protests  Bill  (2010);  the  Strategic  Review  of  Parades  (2007  &  2008);  and  an  evidence  session  with  the  Northern  Ireland  Affairs  Committee  in  relation    to  the  Quigley  report.    

44  

 

CRC Policy Position

The following section will outline the Council’s key policy positions regarding this issue.

Protection of Human Rights

It is the task of a democratic society to seek to ensure that the rights of everyone are upheld

and respected at all times. Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the

Right of Freedom of Peaceful Assembly9, must be upheld and should be the basis for any

discussion on parades.

The role for community relations is to bridge the complicated and misinterpreted landscape

and legislation and take us beyond stalemate.

Community Engagement

Local communities are a crucial element in this search for a solution. CRC advocates

support for structures and programmes of engagement that build support and understanding

at a community level. This should include an understanding of the relevant human rights

obligations, as well as the restrictions and limitations that may be placed on these rights if

they affect the rights of others. This rights and responsibility discourse needs to be

widespread right across civic society.

Mediation

If the right to assembly is questioned then mediation will play an important function, both at a

formal and informal level. Protecting the freedom of peaceful assembly can be achieved by

minimal enforcement or arbitrary regulation and CRC would prefer a strong emphasis on

participatory regulation, compromise, negotiation and increased understanding as the basis

for moving forward.

CRC is strongly supportive of local discussion, local agreement, and formal mediation as a

way towards resolving disputes. Therefore CRC wants any solution to maximise

opportunities for dialogue as well as enabling different methods of interventions. Ideally we                                                                                                                          9 http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf

45  

 

need a model which allows sustained mediation. CRC does not believe that mediation

should only be applied in extreme circumstances, or centred on the containment or

management of emergency situation; rather, it should be applied throughout the year to

assist dialogue and negotiation around these thorny issues.

Finally, local accommodation is best built when all parties are sure that agreements reached

are just and fair and fit a framework of principles which is agreed and applies universally to

all.

Mediators

Mediators have a critical role to play. The involvement of mediators can help instigate

dialogue or help sustain contact either at key stages of the process or at specific times of

tension. It is therefore important that mediators are trained to a professional standard and

are acceptable to communities as honest brokers. CRC believes that appointment should

be through an open and transparent process, compliant with advertising standards and

accessible to a wide range of qualified mediators. Additionally, good quality training for

mediators should be provided alongside a robust monitoring and evaluation service to keep

abreast of issues, assess impact and constantly improve on service.

Adjudications

In the absence of agreement on cultural issues the legal framework must come into play.

The development of a law10 for parades and protests is basically a substitute for agreement,

and as it stands it remains focused on managing rather that resolving the wider issues.

CRC believes that when no solution is forthcoming then the adjudications of parades and

protests must be clearly based on a rights approach. Adjudications should be framed in a

consistent and transparent manner in which the balance of rights and international

obligations applied in each case is explicitly identified.

It is important that there is clarity on competing rights. In spite of years of decision-making,

the issue of the balance of rights to be applied in relation to parading remains contested and

it is therefore imperative that determinations should seek to create greater consistency and

                                                                                                                         10 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/2/crossheading/general-regulation-of-public-processions

46  

 

clarity around the issues of competing rights. There are obvious roles here for statutory and

non-statutory organisations in helping to raise public awareness about the rights framework

relating to peaceful assembly and the rights of others.

Adjudicating Structures

In the absence of voluntary agreements and the continued contentious issue of parading in

Northern Ireland CRC believes that an adjudicating body is probably still needed. It should

be independent and impartial. Membership should be drawn up through an open and

transparent process, and any appointments made should meet the highest standards of

public appointments and consistent with OCPANI guidance. Finally the body should be

broadly reflective the whole community.

Monitors

Monitors play an important role in supporting those who have organised a parade or protest,

and the information they feedback can be used to improve future parades/protests. Monitors

should be independent and should be required to adhere to a Code of Conduct11.

Young People

Finally special attention should be paid to young people. Too often young people are caught

up at parade flashpoints and blamed for creating tension. It would be appropriate for the

Panel of Parties to proactively seek to engage with young people and those who work with

and support young people to ensure their views are captured during this important period.

Long-term, relevant bodies should engage with young people’s groups and organisations,

and specifically young people themselves, throughout the year to help protect them during

period of communal tension.

                                                                                                                         11Code of conduct of the Network of Independent Monitors in the Cape Town Model these include: be committed to the principles of the UN Declaration of Human Rights; be committed to independent monitoring; be accessible to all parties being monitored; pledge to promote peace and work to end violence; be committed to non-violent action and methods of monitoring; report truthfully and accurately on situations; strive to act confidently, calmly and diplomatically; display sensitivity and empathy for the vulnerability of victims of violence; respect the need for confidentiality; not publicly display any party preference (in word, by action or by wearing party badges or clothing) while monitoring; Democratic Dialogue;

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/dd/report12/report12b.htm  

47  

 

The above section has reflected on various positions CRC has taken over the years in

relation to parading and protest. Fundamentally there is a need to protect the right to

assembly, and to ensure all efforts are made to uphold this right. The invoking or restricting

of this right to protect the rights of others is another critical element. How decisions are

taken regarding any restrictions should be clear and concise thus creating an opportunity for

enhanced understanding and acceptance. Finally interventions that can help find a local

resolution are critical and must be supported on an ongoing basis.

Support and Intervention

The CRC has a long history of involvement in the parading issue. Our approach is multi-

dimensional and consists of supporting organisations and communities to engage on the

hard questions, either through direct involvement or providing grant-aid to support this

work12. This developmental work has the potential to result in positive outcomes such as

building trust between parade organisers, police, and the wider community including

residents and business community. (Current CRC support is listed in Appendix A). At other

times the work has to be halted due to tensions at local level, but at all times the opportunity

for dialogue remains the goal.

Yet, despite progressive interventions and local solutions13 it is very clear the issue is not

easily solved, and quite often solutions remain fragile. Yet, it is important to note that there

have been significant achievements. Much of this has taken place behind the scenes and

often goes unreported (perhaps only those involved will know the true efforts). Therefore it

can be quite difficult to list successes in the apprehension of breaking confidences. Yet,

there are some that have been indentified for the purposes of research and are in the public

domain. It would be useful to reflect on these models of good practice during these

negotiations.

Other matters for consideration

This section will quickly draw attention to a number of issues that should be examined over

the coming months.

                                                                                                                         12CRC  has,  and  continues  to  support  and  work  on  issues  relating  to  parades  and  protests;  in  particular  our  core  grant  and  small  grant  schemes  have  invested  money  directly  in  mediation,  research  and  broader  conversations  of  cultural  diversity  e.g.  Peace  and  Reconciliation  Group  (PRG),  Mediation  Northern  Ireland,  Ulster  Band  Association  as  well  as  Diversity  Challenges.      

13 Apprentice Boys Parades in Derry/Londonderry, Covenant Parade 2012, St Patrick’s Day Parade Belfast.

48  

 

Tensions

Outside of the legal and human rights setting is the practice of parading in NI. It is this

practice, which can be most damaging to community relations. Some dispute the use of

community relations as a consideration in the adjudication process yet as it stands this is

within the parameters of the legislation. It would therefore be useful to discuss how human

rights and community relations are used in the parading discourse and how this could be

improved. There is no denying that the fall out of contentious and un-resolved parading

requests can have disastrous effects on both local and wider community relations. We must

find a new way of having this debate without positioning human rights and community

relations against each other.

Dialogue

Outside the legal framework, it is sustained engagement and dialogue that can ameliorate

tensions. This dialogue does not happen by itself. Sometimes, like these Panel of Parties

talks themselves, it requires an external voice, a fixer, who can keep the channels open. It is

a local negotiating tool that needs time to build trust and understanding.

During the talks period it would be extremely important that participants hear from a range of

communities who have successfully managed to work out an agreement. It would be

beneficial to reflect on:

• how inclusive talks were achieved;

• what guided successful interventions;

• how everyone remained at the table at difficult periods - what and who kept the talks

focused;

• what values and principles were agreed from the outset and what commitment they

gave one another.

None of the above is new. This dialogue will continue to happen regardless of what comes

out of these talks but it would be useful to look at how it works in other areas, who is at the

table, who keeps them at the table, mechanisms for dealing with disputes, and the long term

49  

 

vision of those present. It will certainly not be a one size fits all, but it is a sound structure for

making further progress. The dialogue element of dealing with the parading issue cannot be

over-emphasised and the effects of non-participation can have disastrous effects.

If adjudication is required it would be good practice if the body not only received

representations but also actively sought to hear from a wide range of stakeholders in the

area.

Rights and Responsibilities

The language of parading and protests is heavily weighted with ‘losing’, ‘winning’, ‘not being

allowed’. Yet what seems to be missing from this discourse is that with rights comes

responsibilities. Whilst there might be a growing recognition that everyone has rights it can

frequently result in a prioritisation of rights conversation resulting in a debate on who has

more rights, or whose right is more important. We need to find a better way of enhancing an

understanding of these issues – developing this base could open new opportunities for local

engagement and mediation.

Shared Space

CRC defines shared space as a space that is welcoming, accessible and safe. It would be

helpful if the discussions sought to focus on how the rights of different identities are

facilitated in different spaces e.g. commercial verses residential.

In having this conversation CRC would draw the group’s attention to the legislation and

practice in Scotland. Glasgow City Council’s Policy and Code of Conduct on Public

Processions14 sets out some of the following conditions i.e. only allowing parades between

7.30am – 9.00pm; no music played before 9.00am and after 6.00pm (further restrictions may

be required after considering the type of premises on the proposed route e.g. residential

developments, places of worship(irrespective of whether a service is in progress), football

grounds and public houses); the presumption is that processions will avoid residential areas

and should, where practical, keep to main arterial routes; and organisers are required to

detail reasons why it is necessary to pass through the city centre.

Impromptu Assembly

                                                                                                                         14 http://www.glasgow.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=6918

50  

 

CRC’s response to OFMDFM’s consultation on Public Assemblies, Parades & Protest Bill

(Northern Ireland) raised the importance of being able to arrange an impromptu assembly.

CRC was concerned at the proposed restriction of 50 people and believed any move to

restrict this spontaneous practice could have unintended consequences. In the past CRC

has supported numerous gatherings which have had a community relations focus. These

are both necessary and legitimate events for a democratic society and CRC would be

uneasy about changes that would extend the role of the criminal law into new areas, with

potential consequences for community relations.

Law & Order

The parties need to discuss how they can come together collectively as one voice to

condemn attacks on law and order. Civic society wants to hear a united strong voice from

the political leadership of the Assembly. Too often that collective voice is absent and

emerges as a fragmented message. It would be extremely positive, if coming out of these

talks, the parties would commit to developing and publishing a ‘statement of expectation’

along with other strategic stakeholders in advance of the parade season.

Conclusion

In the context of international human rights standards and obligations the CRC believes that

the parading and protests issue can be resolved. A new climate of accommodation and

tolerance impacting on public space, cultural celebration and our cultural and educational

institutions could have far-reaching achievements.

51  

 

Appendix A: CRC Support and Intervention

• Interaction

• Institute of Conflict Research

• React

• North Belfast Interface Network

• Peace & Reconciliation Group

• Belfat Interface Project

• Intercomm

• Ballynafeigh Community Development Association

• Groundwork

• LINC

• Rural Community Network

Often the work these organisations are engaged in parading as a specific issue, or can

involve work of a more single-identity nature which includes working with Bands Fora to

provide them with the skills to manage parades and minimise negative impacts.

52  

 

Annex 3

Dealing with the past

53  

 

Background

In 1998 the Agreement 15cemented the values of reconciliation and mutual respect in an

international peace treaty.

In the Declaration of Support, the signatories committed themselves to ‘partnership, equality

and mutual respect as the basis of relationships within Northern Ireland, between North and

South, and between these islands’. There was a specific reference to the tragedies of the

past with the following commitment made:

‘We must never forget those who have died or been injured, and their families. But

we can best honour them through a fresh start, in which we firmly dedicate ourselves

to the achievement of reconciliation, tolerance and mutual trust, and to the protection

and vindication of the human rights of all’.

In addition to this the signatories to the Agreement committed themselves to ongoing actions

in relation to reconciliation and victims of violence and ‘recognised that victims have a right

to remember as well as to contribute to a changed society’.

The aftermath of the Agreement witnessed many political ups and downs, with intermittent

devolved and direct rule administration. However, the current devolved administration has

given society new hope that power-sharing in government can work and that reconciliation

may be possible. What this all points to is that political stability brings with it many

expectations in relation to the development and implementation of public policy bringing the

possibility of real change to communities and personal life chances as well as to institutions

and structures. This has created a huge opportunity to tackle the legacy of division and to

create a cohesive, shared and integrated society, open and welcoming to all, resolving

conflicts on a purely peaceful basis. The Together: Building a United Community16 strategy

has emerged against the backdrop of years of community effort and an unsurpassed level of

international investment and in the context of an existing policy.

                                                                                                                         15 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/136652/agreement.pdf 16 http://www.ofmdfmni.gov.uk/together_building_a_united_community.pdf

54  

 

Context

Recently there has been significant political and public interest, commentary and debate in

relation to the area of dealing with past. The symbolism derived from the increasing

discourse and analysis may be two-fold, either that the current approach has faltered or that

as a society we have reached an evolutionary point within the peace process whereby we

recognise that the necessity of addressing the issues of dealing with past can no longer be

deferred.

Yet the difficulty is that there is a lack of political and societal consensus as to how we

understand, interpret or address the past. Consequently, this indecision has resulted in a

piecemeal approach to dealing with very serious issues. The busy landscape of legislation,

structures and policy frameworks is reflected in a Strategy for Victims and Survivors (2009),

Commission for Victims and Survivors (2008), and the Victims and Survivors Service (2012)

which are all tasked with promoting the interests of victims and survivors and offering

financial support to individuals and groups.

Furthermore the critical issue of searching for truth recovery and justice is under the remit of

a number of bodies such as the Police Ombudsman (1998), the Historical Enquiries Team

(2006) and the Attorney General. In addition, Public Inquiries have also formed part of this

approach for dealing with this aspect of the past.

What has emerged, despite the spirit and intention of addressing some of the issues, is a

complex and complicated environment. This multi dimensional approach, with no over-

arching strategic intention or vision, has created a perception of paralysis. Merge this with

varying perspectives of the past e.g. drawing a line under the past, continued pursuit for truth

and/or justice, the development of truth commissions, the introduction of amnesties, or a

combination of a number of these and you quickly sense the magnitude of the task.

A growing number of matters and events have brought this area firmly back onto the political

and public agenda in relation to how we deal with components of the past, and the need for

an overarching framework, namely the HMIC Report into the Historical Enquiries Team, Civil

Service (Special Advisers) Bill17 , the Castlederg Volunteers commemoration, postponement

                                                                                                                         17 http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/Assembly-Business/Legislation/Current-Non-Executive-Bill-Proposals/Civil-Service-Special-Advisers-Bill/ and http://www.hmic.gov.uk/media/inspection-of-the-police-service-of-northern-ireland-historical-enquiries-team-20130703.pdf

55  

 

of plans for the Maze, the rejection of the call for an Omagh Public Inquiry and the releasing

of coroners’ reports into several conflict related deaths. These have brought to the fore

many of the issues of commemoration and remembering, reconciliation, truth recovery, re-

integration of prisoners and victims and survivors.

The combination of these with other legacy issues, such as flags, emblems, interfaces and

parades bring us to a difficult fork in peace process. It is likely that the very decisions that

are made will set the trajectory for how as a society we approach the multiple layers of the

past and critically how we go forward towards building a shared and cohesive society.

Within this context, the Community Relations Council (CRC) works to bring constructive and

balanced considerations, commentary and advice to the process of dealing with the past.

CRC – Contribution to the Discourse

CRC has been engaged in the issues stemming from the legacy of the past at a discourse,

policy development and funding delivery levels since its organisational formation. From this

the council has developed a considerable level of knowledge and practical experience in

relation to the sensitivity and challenges involved.

Policy

CRC’s overarching thinking, messages, recommendations and statements regarding the

legacy of the past is contained within the Council’s response to the Eames/Bradley

Consultative Group on the Past (2008). These comments continue to be pertinent to the

current discussions.

Primarily CRC believes that, as a society emerging from conflict, dealing with our troubled

and conflicted past is an unavoidable and necessary moral obligation. Whilst recognition

must be given to the huge political and societal progress the shadow of the past continues to

haunt the future. CRC believes that the legacy of the past must deal with the specific issues

of victims and survivors, and truth recovery and justice. However, we feel any solution must

embrace wider society. Sectarianism and division have not yet disappeared and continue to

impact on the present day; individuals, communities, towns, villages, the workplace and

service delivery continue to experience the social, economic, physical and emotional

legacies of the past. Unfortunately for too long public policy accepted the principle that we                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

56  

 

are a divided society without acknowledgement or comment, 18 and Council has

subsequently argued for a ‘regional peace plan’. This has emerged in the shape of the

Together Building a United Community strategy and it is therefore important that

recommendations emerging from these current talks consider the current policy landscape.

What follows is a number of key policy positions that have shaped our thinking on how to

deal with the past:

• Support for victims and survivors groups must be needs-based and strategic, with

proper evaluation and distillation of good practice. (Whilst, it is recognised that

OFMdFM has responded to this recommendation through the establishment of the

Victims and Survivors Service, it is too soon to assess if this has been fully

achieved).

• Truth and justice should be pursued through appropriate formal legal structures.

• A process of truth recovery should combine bottom-up story-telling initiatives and a

Commission of Historical Clarification.

However the area of the legacy of the past should not be seen as one singular thematic area

but rather as a series of sub themes. Yet it is the culmination of the many issues in each of

these sub thematic areas that can give the perception that the issue of the legacy of the past

is intractable. CRC has put forward both commentary and recommendations in relation to a

number of areas including:

• Definition of a victim/survivor

• Processes for dealing with the past and/or truth recovery

• Structures

• Remembering

Definition of victims and survivors

Who is a victim? This issue frequently emerges as a thorny issue in political debates, and is

one that despite legislation seems the most intractable. CRC currently supports the current

definition as set out in the Victims and Survivors (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 as someone

who has been physically or psychologically injured as a result of a conflict-related incident;

                                                                                                                         18 CRC Submission to the Consultative Group on the Past 2008; http://www.community-relations.org.uk/fs/doc/Response%20to%20Consultative%20Group%20on%20the%20Past%20-%2025%20Jan%2008.doc

57  

 

someone who provides a substantial amount of care on a regular basis for a person who has

been physically or psychologically injured as a result of a conflict-related incident; and

someone who has been bereaved as a result of a conflict-related incident.

This lack of political consensus is unsettling. CRC is aware that the Commission for Victims

and Survivors have a number of forums with membership from the victims and survivors

community. These groups discuss a range of issues and it would be proper that those

engaged in the talks hear from this membership on this divisive issue.

Processes for dealing with the past and/or truth recovery

CRC believes that “dealing with the past is a process rather than an event and therefore

should be supervised by a commission” and our response to the Consultative Group on the

Past recommended that any commission should be independent of government in order to

ensure the credibility of the process based on the universal principles of democracy, human

rights and the rule of law.

Our response also reflected on HTR’s five options for dealing with the past19 which are

outlined below.

1. “Drawing a Line Under the Past” (essentially do nothing new)

2. Internal Organisational Investigations

3. Community-Based “Bottom-Up” Truth Recovery

4. A Truth-Recovery Commission

5. A Commission of Historical Clarification

CRC has advocated a combination of options three and five which included ‘bottom-up’ local

initiatives such as story-telling by victims allied to a ‘top-down’ Commission of Historical

Clarification. This Commission would focus on the broad sweep of the ‘troubles’ identifying

the differentiated responsibilities of a range of social actors with a view to preventing a

recurrence of large-scale violence in the future.

CRC also asserted that a ‘victim-centred’ approach, stemming from (option three) the

Community – Based “Bottom- Up” Truth Recovery, would allow stories to be told in public,

                                                                                                                         19 Kieran McEvoy, Making Peace with the Past: Options for Truth Recovery regarding the Conflict in and about Northern Ireland (Belfast: Healing Through Remembering, 2006, www.healingthroughremembering.org/images/pdf/Making%20Peace%20with%20the%20Past.pdf)

58  

 

with appropriate counselling and support. This was preferred over (option four) a Truth

Recovery Commission as it “would suppress and restrict other valuable processes to be

pursued.”

In relation to Public Inquiries CRC noted its concern about the proposal that there should be

no more public inquiries, pointing out that the opportunity to find out the facts about what

happened to a loved one is profoundly important. CRC felt that disallowing public inquiries

was too absolute and would close this avenue for families wishing to pursue this approach –

CRC believe this should remain an option. CRC recommended that rather than concluding

that public inquiries should cease, the report should instead have made recommendations

on how to manage future inquiries.

The Council also stated that the work of the Historical Enquiries Team and the Police

Ombudsman should continue as vehicles to attaining truth and justice20 and the importance

of supporting mechanisms to continue to bring closure (the recent report on the HET has

raised issues which need to be addressed).

In relation to a proposed reconciliation forum a qualified welcome was made, though it was

noted that there was a potential risk of duplication and with this a need for clarity regarding

the role of the Commissioners for Victims and Survivors and the relationship between the

proposed Reconciliation Forum and that of the now established Victims Forum.

The overarching issue here is that whatever proposals are forthcoming from this current

initiative, there is a need to consider the work of other stakeholders.

Wider Society

This next section examines the issues that could have a positive impact on wider society and

support civic society to deal with the past.

                                                                                                                         20 CRC’s response to the NIO Dealing with the Past Committee http://www.community-relations.org.uk/fs/doc/NIODealPast2009.pdf )

59  

 

Remembering

With regard to the critical and topical question of how we remember, CRC’s and Heritage

Lottery Fund’s (HLF) ‘Remembering the Future’21 discussion paper makes a significant

contribution to this discussion. It indicates a number of components that could help frame

how we might approach this issue in an ethical and sensitive manner:

• We should approach anniversaries as an important opportunity to develop our

understanding of how such events could be marked in the public space.

• The principles that underpin this should aim for deepening understanding and

respect as well as a welcome for difference, complexity and debate.

• We should acknowledge that these centenaries are significant for all of us in different

ways, but also that the way in which we remember and mark them is not only

remembering ‘then’, but defining us ‘now’.

• We should recognise the importance of work within communities and initiatives which

provide opportunities for communities and groups to reflect on and address issues of

identity within a safe space and the value of promoting many particular contributions

to the public realm.

• Cultural displays should occur in the context of civil and political liberties and in

accordance with international human rights norms.

• The possibility of remembering ethically and in a global context should not be

overlooked.

This discussion paper is aligned to the Council of Europe’s “White Paper on Intercultural

Dialogue” (2008)22 which suggests that civic participation and dialogue are vital elements in

any healthy inter-cultural dialogue, and enables us to move forward together, to deal with our

different identities constructively and democratically on the basis of shared universal values.

The white paper states that “we also need to be mindful and provide opportunities to include

different perspectives and those that reflect the increased diversity in the population”, and

also highlights the need to recognise plurality and responsibility in remembrance or

commemoration in public space and to promote greater understanding of the complexity and

interest of complicated identities.

                                                                                                                         21 http://www.community-relations.org.uk/fs/doc/Remembering%20the%20future%20discussion%20paper.pdf 22 http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/intercultural/source/white%20paper_final_revised_en.pdf

60  

 

Day of Reflection

CRC has also made a number of recommendations in relation to more societal based

processes and mechanisms for remembering the past. These included support for Healing

through Remembering’s (HTR) Public Day of Reflection. This original private day has

become more public and whilst it has not received official status, it would be useful to

discuss how this day could be developed further. In discussing this it is important to ensure

it remains ‘inclusive and sensitive’ and that no one feels obliged to take part.

Memorials

In relation to memorials CRC has advocated that there should be a regional societal

memorial to mark the ‘troubles’, and that localised memorials should be framed in the

context of promoting shared space.

Understanding Plural Voices

Enabling a conversation about the past is critical. CRC feels that museums have a central

role in supporting this approach. CRC’s response to DCAL’s Draft Museum (2010)23

highlighted the role museums have in generating pluralist and reasoned debate about the

region’s past - ‘museums have the vital task of reflecting and reframing debates on key

issues and events, through demonstrating a commitment to plural voices, encouraging

active engagement with the stories and experiences of self and of others, and providing an

open, safe and shared context within which that discussion can be validated in the public

realm’.

Young People

Finally, research supported by CRC showed that there was an unsatisfied appetite among

young people for understanding the ‘troubles’ as such, as this period was seen as more

immediate to their lives and not simply history’.24 The research urged that there was a focus

                                                                                                                         23 DCAL—Draft Museums Policy’, at www.community-relations.org.uk/about’-the-council/background-info/policy-and-development/responses/2010. 24 John Bell, Ulf Hansson and Nick McCaffery, The Troubles Aren’t History Yet: Young People’s Understanding of the Past (Belfast: CRC, 2010),

61  

 

on ensuring the young people could ‘hear the perspective of the ‘other’ through historical

narratives about the recent past.25

CRC – Support and Intervention

In addition to contributing to the policy analysis and discourse, CRC has played a significant

role as a funding and development body, which has developed significant knowledge,

understanding, skills and experience at an organisational level.

                                                                                                                         25Ibid, 100

62  

 

Funding

From 2002 – 2012 CRC acted as an Intermediate Funding Body for Victims and Survivors

Groups through OFMdFM funding (to groups working with victims and survivors) and more

recently managed Peace III funding stream 1.2 Acknowledging and Dealing with the Past

which encourages dialogue and participation through the sharing of practice, events,

conferences and seminars. This funding role has given the CRC members and staff great

awareness of the sensitivities and extreme difficulties associated with addressing the legacy

of the past both in relation to definition, approach, policy, and supporting initiatives.

Research

CRC has commissioned relevant research. A 2006 report entitled “Who Cares for the

Carers? (CRC 2006) highlighted the isolation and loneliness felt by carers (identified by

groups working with victims and survivors). Other findings in the report revealed that carers

involved in the study displayed high levels of burn out and stress; levels of emotional

exhaustion were found to be 43% higher than the threshold for high burn out, and financial

difficulties for both carer and victim and physical difficulties regarding mobility for those

caring for injured/disabled.

Furthermore, a 2010 independent review of CRC’s Victims and Survivors Funding was used

to inform the Commission for Victims and Survivors NI’s Comprehensive Needs Analysis

(CVSNI). Notable in the findings was that mental health and well-being services were

significantly higher in cost than other services and the wide spread need for respite support

and befriending services.

CRC was also been represented on the pilot Victims Forum and Forum Transition Group.

Commemoration

In addition to this CRC and the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) from late 2010 began to work in

partnership in order to stimulate a conversation which sought to raise the issue of

remembering in public space and to promote a process that leads to the development of

practice models and principles. The collaboration agreed a set of principles in relation to

commemoration:

63  

 

1. Start from the historical facts;

2. Recognise the implications and consequences of what happened;

3. Understand that different perceptions and interpretations exist; and

4. Show how events and activities can deepen understanding of the period.

All to be seen in the context of an ‘inclusive and accepting society’

CRC and HLF continue to promote discussion and proactive engagement that include

community based approaches and an emphasis on:

• Promoting collaborations

• Uncovering the hidden stories, the “quirks” and “what ifs” of history to provide a more

complete understanding

• Engaging young people

• Recording stories

• Broad circulation and access

• Capacity building work

• Local exploration of people and places

• Creative methods

• Uncovering local history - creating resources

• Lectures, dialogue, safe and open spaces for cross identity work

• Individual exploration of our complex identity (in the manner of “Who do we think we

are?”).

CRC and HLF support a broad and inclusive approach to commemoration -

◦ from the local (of people and places) ,

◦ to the international (Empire, war, migration),and

◦ the modern (protecting minorities, why people migrate, identity, war and

solidarity).

Promoting inclusive discussion, dialogue in exploring history and identity

Ethical-Forward looking – what shape society?

Practising how to mark anniversaries in public space as we approach the 50th

anniversaries of the recent conflict

64  

 

Overall, the focus of joint work for CRC and HLF for 2012-2013 broadly involves working at

the sub regional level, disseminating the resources utilising the networks of both HLF and

CRC to create synergies on the ground, with a particular focus on young people.

Conclusion

CRC has and will continue to play an active role in discussions about dealing with the legacy

of the past. Based on a strong track record of engagement in strategic partnerships and

supporting the work of groups on the ground and individuals engaged in addressing legacy

of the past issues.

CRC continues to be involved in developing and implementing a programme of work that

acknowledges the significance of commemoration, as well as supporting projects aimed at

marking anniversaries in public space. This work has been initiated at both a strategic and a

local level.

Our experience suggests that it is time for a collective, inclusive and cost effective approach.

1 CRC’s principles and values The CRC is founded on the following values and principles: Equity and Equality: CRC is committed to fair treatment for all, through open access to resources, structures and decision-making processes at all levels of society, as an essential basis for good community relations. Human Rights: The CRC is committed to upholding the human rights of all as a fundamental basis for good community relations. Diversity: CRC is committed to the promotion of inter-cultural respect and freedom of expression and movement (whether expressed through religious, ethnic or political background) and supports the peaceful expression of variety and difference. Interdependence: CRC recognises and affirms the interconnectedness of the personal and community experiences of all those living and working in Northern Ireland. CRC exists to promote good relations based on trust, respect and inclusion. Non-violence: CRC recognises non-violence as an essential condition for the growth of trust, dialogue and conflict transformation. Openness, Transparency and Accountability: As a provider of public services, CRC will uphold this principle in all its work. All of our work is conducted on the basis of these values

65  

 

Annex 4

Examples of CRC’s work and achievements over

recent years

66  

 

a) The development of a sustained and vibrant regional infrastructure for community and good relations work across the region through OFMDFM core funding, PEACE II, PEACE III and IFI Community Bridges Programme is recognized as being of world class. This includes the development of capabilities and key skills such as mediation, training, public dialogue and work with public institutions. CRC has also shaped the development of community relations work in key thematic areas such as the workplace, sport and churches. CRC has taken a keen interest in ensuring that this work builds on the enthusiasm of a variety of constituencies, including young people and women. CRC has invested in volunteer and residential capacity as well as community relations work in the most contested areas, such as interfaces, and in local areas across the towns and cities of Northern Ireland and beyond. It also includes the development of CRC as a leading agent for the support and development of cross-border peace building in Ireland.

b) The establishment, support and development of a dense network of interface peace projects across Belfast including programme, practical support and innovation. Practically all of this work has been undertaken through schemes managed by CRC. This has become the core for inter-community dialogue in the most contested areas of the city and beyond and a vital resource for stability.

c) Development of innovative community projects which have become exemplars of best practice in community relations and the base for wider initiatives- e.g. Springfarm Shared Neighbourhood Programme, Hazelwood Partnership, Rural Enablers Programme.

d) Development and co-ordination of statutory-voluntary partnerships to tackle the most difficult residual issues in peace building: the Interface Community Partners Group and the Beyond Belfast project into rural segregation and acting as a key partner in the Department of Justice led Interagency Group.

e) The sensitive and professional development of systematic and inclusive advocacy and service delivery structure by victims for victims of the conflict.

f) Development of important services for victims and survivors such as volunteer befriending, caring and respite for carers and engaging victims in the most sensitive complex issue of peacebuilding and a shared future

g) Support and development for the establishment of 14 local PEACE Partnerships covering all of Northern Ireland and the 6 Border counties. (in consortium with Pobal)

h) One of the most innovative, creative and responsive small grants programme for community relations, cultural diversity and emergency response in Northern Ireland.

i) Co-operative institutional partnership on critical issues such as Re-Imaging Communities, Creating Common Ground, Shared Neighbourhood Scheme, Good Relations Forum, Shared Education Programme, North Belfast Community Action Unit and Belfast City Council Good Relations Unit.

j) Systematic policy response to shared future, community relations and cultural diversity issues.

k) Participation in reviews of some of the most difficult topics e.g. the Ashdown Review on Parading, the Crumlin Road Gaol/Girdwood Advisory Panel and the Sentence Review Commission.

67  

 

l) Establishment of broad public platforms for a shared future and against hate crime, such as Community Relations Week, Unite Against Hate and the One Small Step campaign

m) Practical and intellectual support for community relations work and policy.

n) Establishment of Shared Space Research journal.

o) Numerous research publications on key topics such as interfaces, education, young people, planning and shared space and the embeddedness of sectarianism.

p) Public conferences on key themes including parades and protests; legacy of the past; flags and emblems; cohesion, sharing and Integration, the regeneration of interfaces; business and economic development, young people and a shared future; sustainability in community relations work and the future of victims and survivors work.

q) Training events ranging from support for financial and programme management, evaluation and monitoring, to sectarianism and racism.

r) Seminars on key research and core themes such as shared space, housing, education, cohesion arts and community relations, and the work of key thinkers on peace building.

s) Annual Community Relations Week which includes the annual Policy Conference and Community Relations Award.

t) 5 Practitioners forums per annum.

u) Public challenge, newspaper and journal articles and advocacy across Northern Ireland and the border region.

v) International learning support through the AMBIT programme and the Outward and Forward-looking Region programme of EU PEACE II extension.

w) Advice to government departments on numerous issues of inter-community concern including Ministerial working group on North Belfast, Flags Protocol Monitoring Group, North Belfast Community Action Group, Good Relations Panel, DE Shared Future Advisory group, DoE Migration Advisory group, DSD, BRO, DCAL and numerous District Councils.

x) Establishment of the Rowntree Peace Monitoring Report Monitoring project on the progress of peace (copies enclosed).

 

68  

 

Research

The Community Relations Council has commissioned research, published and highlighted other’s research. The following is an example of this work.

General

Community Relations Council (2011), Towards a Shared Society, Community Relations Council.

Community Relations Council (2008), What Made Now in Northern Ireland, Community Relations Council.

Flags

Noelle Donnell (2009), Flags & Emblems - Fields, Flags and future sharing: an overview of the rural perspective of community relations, Shared Space Issue 7, Community Relations Council.

Dominic Bryan, Clifford Stevenson & Gordon Gillespie (2007), Flagging Identities: assessing the display and regulation of political symbols across Northern Ireland in 2006, Shared Space Issue 4, Community Relations Council.

Clem McCartney & Lucy Bryson, Flying the Flag. A Report on the Use of Flags, Anthems and other National Symbols in Northern Ireland, Community Relations Council.

Parades

Neil Jarman & Geraldine Scullion (2013), Protecting Rights or Limiting Disorder? Freedom of Assembly and the Right to Protest, Shared Space Issue 15, Community Relations Council.

Neil Jarman, John Bell & Mary-Kathryn Rallings (2009), Dialogue or Disengagment? Responding to Disputes over Parades, Shared Space Issue 8, Community Relations Council.

John Bell (2007), Parades & Protests An Annotated Bibliography, Institute for Conflict Research.

Dominic Bryan & Neil Jarman (1999), Independent Intervention, Democratic Dialogue & Community Development Centre, North Belfast.

Springfield Inter-Community Development Project (1998), Report of a Series of Seminars organised by Springfield Inter-Community Development Project, Interface Issues-Tackling Anti Social Behaviour-Marching and Rights; Community Relations Council.

Tom Hadden & Anne Donnelly (1997), The Legal Control of marches in Northern Ireland, Community Relations Council.

Dominic Bryan & Neil Jarman (1997), Parading Tradition, Protesting Triumphalism: Utilising Anthropology in Public Policy, The Institute of Irish Studies, QUB.

69  

 

Neil Jarman (1997), Material Conflicts-Parades and Visual Displays in Northern Ireland, BERG.

Dealing with the past

Community Relations Council (2013), Remembering the Future, Understanding our Past, Shaping our Future, NICRC and Heritage Lottery Fund.

Community Relations Council (2013), Decades of Anniversaries – Toolkit, NICRC and Heritage Lottery Fund.

Neil Jarman (2012), ‘Hope and History: Looking Backwards to Move Forward’, Shared Space Issue 14, Community Relations Council.

Máire Braniff (2012), ‘After Agreement: The Challenges of Implementing Peace’, Shared Space Issue 14, Community Relations Council.

John Bell (2012), ‘The Dynamics of Religious Difference in Contemporary Northern Ireland’, Shared Space Issue 14, Community Relations Council.

Laura Fowler Graham (2012), ‘Northern Ireland’s approaches to Social Cohesion: A case study of social capital in victim support groups’, Shared Space Issue 14, Community Relations Council.

Thomas G Fraser (2012), ‘Historical Legacies and the Northern Ireland Peace Process: Issues of Commemoration and Memorialisation’, Shared Space Issue 12, Community Relations Council.

Nick McCaffery and Ulf Hansson (2011), ‘The Troubles Aren’t History Yet: Young People’s Understanding of the Past’, Shared Space Issue 11, Community Relations Council.

South East Fermanagh Foundation (2011), An Evaluation of The Effectiveness of Complementary Therapies on Trauma Related Illnesses.

John Bell, Ulf Hansson and Nick McCaffery (2010), The Troubles Aren’t History Yet: Young People’s Understanding of the Past, Community Relations Council.

Mick Byers (2009), Pandora’s Box? Engaging with our pasts: Initial explorations from the victims sector and republican community, Shared Space Issue 8, Community Relations Council.

Katy Radford and Sarah Templer (2008), ‘Women and Relationships: Experiences from the ‘victims’ sector’ in Shared Space Issue 6, Community Relations Council.

Patricia Lundy and Mark McGovern (2008), ‘Attitudes towards a Truth Commission for Northern Ireland’ in A Sustainable Peace?, Community Relations Council.

Patricia Lundy and Mark McGovern (2008), ‘Community, Truth-Recovery and Conflict Transformation ‘From Below’’ in A Sustainable Peace?, Community Relations Council.

Sara Templer and Katy Radford (2007/08), Hearing the Voices - Sharing Perspectives in the Victim/Survivor Section, Community Relations Council.

70  

 

Patricia Lundy and Mark McGovern (2006), Attitudes towards a Truth Commission for Northern Ireland – Research Report, Community Relations Council.

Katy Radford (2006), ‘From Major to Minor – The Therapeutic Role of Music in Northern Ireland’s Victim/Survivor Sector’ in Shared Space (Nov 2006) Issue 6, Community Relations Council.

Patricia Lundy and Mark McGovern (2005), ‘Community-based Approaches to Post-Conflict ‘Truth-telling’: Strengths and Limitations’ in Shared Space Issue 1, Community Relations Council.

Jane Leonard (1997), Memorials to the Casualties of Conflict, Northern Ireland 1969 to 1997, Community Relations Council.

Gordon Lucy and Elaine McClure (eds) (1997), Remembrance, Ulster Society (Publications) Ltd.